N V SHAMSUNDERCIVIL JADGE Vs. SAVITABAI SAMBHIRMAL SINGHVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application raises an important question of law as to whether a suit claiming compensation is maintainable against the Judge in respect of the alleged inaction on his part while discharging judicial function.

(2.) This revision is directed against the order dated 5-11-1998 passed by the joint Civil, Judge (Sr. Dn. ,) Pusad in Special Civil Suit No. 32/96 dismissing the application filed by the applicant under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil procedure. The applicant is the defendant No. 1, the respondents 1 to 6 are the plaintiffs and the respondents 7 and 8 are the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 respectively in the said suit. The parties shall be hereinafter referred to in their status in the trial Court.

(3.) Briefly, the facts which are relevant for disposal of the Civil Revision application are as follows : respondents 1 to 6, being legal representatives of Gambhirmal Singhvi, filed the above suit claiming compensation of Rs. 51,688/- with interest thereon against the defendants. The case of the plaintiffs in the suit is that the defendant no. 1 was working as Civil Judge, Sr. Dn. , Pusad and defendant No. 2 was working in the Court and was In-charge of the property transactions during the period September, 1992 to April, 1993. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that property bearing Survey No. 24/2 admeasuring 4h and 86r situated at Mouja ukri, Tah. Digras belonging to Gambhirmal Singhvi was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The Land Acquisition Officer awarded compensation @rs. 8500/- per hectare. The Reference was sought under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act and in Land Acquisition Case No. 260/90 the reference Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 40,000/- per hectare by the judgment and Award dated 30-4-1991. Gambhirmal Singhvi expired on 5-9-1991. Thereafter the plaintiffs claimed the amount of enhanced compensation awarded. According to the plaintiffs, the compensation of Rs. 4,96,903/- was deposited by the Government on 7-9-1992 in the Court. Thereafter it was claimed that the said amount was not invested by the defendant No. 1 as per the circular issued to by the District Courts pursuant to the decision given by this Court on 22-11-1985 in First Appeal No. 219/83. The Circular was issued in terms of the said judgment and as per the circular the defendant No. 1 was required to invest the amount deposited in any Nationalised Bank whether or not the party applied for the same so that the successful party would earn interest on such amount. According to the plaintiffs, on account of inaction on the part of the defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiffs lost interest on the amount deposited. The said amount came to be deposited by the successor of the defendant No. 1 after the applicant was transferred from Pusad. Before filing the suit, plaintiff No. 2 by communication dated 25-4-1994 requested the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court to direct defendant No. 1 for repayment of the said amount to the plaintiffs and to take appropriate steps against the defendants 1 and 2. The Additional Registrar vide reply dated 4-5-1995 informed the plaintiff No. 2 to make request before the appropriate forum by filing a appropriate proceedings. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sent a notice dated 8-9-1995 under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to defendants 1 and 2 and a copy thereof was endorsed to defendant No. 3 demanding the amount of Rs. 40,540/- with interest thereon @10% p. a. The defendant No. 1 by reply dated 29-9-1995 denied the claim of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, on 20-4-1996 the above suit was filed by the plaintiffs. Upon being served with the summons, the defendant No. 1 filed an application on 10-10-1996 under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure on two grounds, firstly, on the ground that the suit did not disclose any cause of action and secondly on the ground that the suit was barred under the Judicial Officers Protection Act of 1850 (hereinafter referred to as The 1850 Act) and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as The 1985 Act). The plaintiffs by reply dated 23rd september, 1996 opposed the application for rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs. After hearing the parties, the learned Judge of the trial Court by the impugned order dismissed the application filed by the defendant No. 1.